Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37304019›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review.

Mikaël Desmons, Michael Theberge, Catherine Mercier, Hugo Massé-Alarie

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mikaël DesmonsCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (Cirris), CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Michael ThebergeCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (Cirris), CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Catherine MercierCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (Cirris), CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Hugo Massé-AlarieCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (Cirris), CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CACentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used to investigate central nervous system mechanisms underlying motor control. Despite thousands of TMS studies on neurophysiological underpinnings of corticomotor control, a large majority of studies have focused on distal muscles, and little is known about axial muscles (e.g., low back muscles). Yet, differences between corticomotor control of low back and distal muscles (e.g., gross vs. fine motor control) suggest differences in the neural circuits involved. This systematic review of the literature aims at detailing the organisation and neural circuitry underlying corticomotor control of low back muscles tested with TMS in healthy humans. Methods: The literature search was performed in four databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline (Ovid) and Web of science) up to May 2022. Included studies had to use TMS in combination with EMG recording of paraspinal muscles (between T12 and L5) in healthy participants. Weighted average was used to synthesise quantitative study results. Results: Forty-four articles met the selection criteria. TMS studies of low back muscles provided consistent evidence of contralateral and ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (with longer ipsilateral latencies) as well as of short intracortical inhibition/facilitation. However, few or no studies using other paired pulse protocols were found (e.g., long intracortical inhibition, interhemispheric inhibition). In addition, no study explored the interaction between different cortical areas using dual TMS coil protocol (e.g., between primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area). Discussion: Corticomotor control of low back muscles are distinct from hand muscles. Our main findings suggest: (i) bilateral projections from each single primary motor cortex, for which contralateral and ipsilateral tracts are probably of different nature (contra: monosynaptic; ipsi: oligo/polysynaptic) and (ii) the presence of intracortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits in M1 influencing the excitability of the contralateral corticospinal cells projecting to low back muscles. Understanding of these mechanisms are important for improving the understanding of neuromuscular function of low back muscles and to improve the management of clinical populations (e.g., low back pain, stroke).

Indexed as

corticospinallow back muscleneural circuitspaired pulsetranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37304019
PMCPMC10247989
OpenAlexW4378232699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.